Proposal description

The core team has already proposed that the funds associated with the Public Awareness budget would be much better spent on accelerating development and on creation of fiat gateways. See the full post from Dashtalk here.

Some in the community asserted that - even though people that disagree with the reallocation of resources have the ability to vote the Public Awareness proposal down - it is a bad precedence to set regardless of the fact that 1) we were confident that the community would agree with the change, and 2) most people seem supportive even if they disagree with the process (e.g., "ends justify the means"). So why didn't we just ask the community to vote out Public Awareness and vote in the new proposal? Several reasons:

1) It would constitute a great deal of collective effort - not just for the core team, but for all the MN owners to go in and down-vote P.A... All for a project that we have a high level of confidence would pass regardless.

2) It would also pose a significant risk that we might not get enough actively downvoted MN votes to kick out the PR budget within the 6 days before the budget finalized. The P.A. budget enjoys lots of support, and sitting at 42% support at the time we made the change, the core team alone couldn't vote out our own proposal. The ability of a proposal owner to revoke or cancel its own proposal isn't a function of the first budget system. Without getting it downvoted properly, there could have been unintended consequences (like PR still funding, the new proposal ALSO funding, which could then cause a bunch of other valuable projects to NOT receive funding).

3) The final rationale is that if the core team misjudged the reaction of the community, we are being transparent about the change, so the community is STILL FREE to downvote the PR proposal if it disagrees with how the money is to be spent OR the manner in which we redirected funds.

All things considered, we thought this was the better path to take given we are 6 days from budget finalization. However, some community members - while they understood these points and support the change - are still concerned. I had proposed on Dashtalk the idea of putting a "decision proposal" out to the network in lieu of simply the announcement of the proposed change. I think this approach still addresses the "downvote risk" in #2 above, but also ensures that the change can only be made by getting the necessary votes, and not by simply slipping a change through before absent MN owners notice. This should allow us to "make it official" with community support, while reducing the risk of a full downvote of the old and upvote of the new. The reallocation will only occur with the community's official approval.

To vote FOR the reallocation: Vote YES on Public Awareness and YES on PA Reallocation
To vote AGAINST the reallocation and simply defund Public Awareness: Vote NO on Public Awareness and NO on PA Reallocation

babygiraffe

Here is an excerpt from the redirect announcement. For the full description, I recommend reading the full original post from Evan, which includes details on the projects the funds will be used to support.

Fiat access ramps development will be prioritized by the core team over PR and advertising during the next few months, starting in March. With
certain small exceptions like Dash Chinese promotion in tandem with
8BTC.

For the next few months we will be focusing in partnerships,
integrations and open source tools development that will facilitate
better access to DASH and more options for user services to clear
transactions on. Starting in March “public-awareness” budget funds are
dedicated to this purpose as this is higher priority than advertising
for the core team at the moment. Also, a series of back end open source
tools will be made available for anyone looking to offer Dash services.

Budget prioritization, 12.1 and budget reset

The new 12.1 release will introduce new contracts functionality to DGBB.
This version should be on testnet within the next month. When it is
released into the mainnet all existing budgets will be cleared as part
of the updating process and will need to be voted back in, on the new
version.

At that point in time both the core-team and public-awareness budget
proposals will be over and the core team will request new funding under a
different model. We are currently working on it and more information
will be released before 12.1 goes to the mainnet.

This is important to answer the question of why we are redirecting the
public-awareness funds to build fiat access ramps instead voting down
current proposals. The answer is, we will clear current core team
proposals and will do it as part of the 12.1 release. This should give
us enough time to finish preparing our new budget plan. In the meantime,
the core project needs continuity so we kindly ask you to bear with us
under the current model for 3 or 4 more months depending on testing
results.

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment

No comments so far?Be the first to start the discussion!

ddink71 point,1 year ago

Thank you Ryan--this is an excellent idea!

Reply

alex-ru0 points,1 year ago

Ryan, thank you for doing it! This may seem like a formality, but from a formal point of view it is important to delegate all important final decision making to Masternode operators.

Reply

qwizzie0 points,1 year ago

good polling of the network, i voted yes.

Reply

TanteStefana1 point,1 year ago

Nice gesture. I'm all for these funds being flexible. In a way, it was first envisioned to be a flexible fund, but we all thought back then that the only need was for getting the word out. We've learned a lot since then, and more than I knew as well. If anyone hasn't seen the new Daily Decrypt, it's an interview with Daniel, and it was amazing. The vision is beyond anything I imagined, and I am blown away. So of course, I voted yes :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhI3YrVRiUE